Existing users, 
Well, looks like 104 is the last version I can regularly use. Something significant must have happened in the JavaScript engine as it is implemented in Camino (IMO) as it will NOT correctly draw the main page at my bank. I spent at least a full day testing various suggestions from the developers a while back, nothing seemed to work. Most of them had to do with exactly what utility I had to use to spoof Firefox (as if the utility had anything to do with it). Once spoofing was set up the way they wanted it to be, it still was a no go. Firefox worked 100% of the time. Safari works 100% of the time. Camino 104 works 100% of the time. No beta, alpha, dev or release version after 104 works. So they dismissed it as the bank's fault. Which it clearly and obviously isn't.
My bank (Citibank) is fairly clear about browsers it supports. Netscape, Firefox, Safari, IE are all supported. AND all work 100% correctly. So it was left as it's the banks fault because they don't do "browser detection" correctly. Which is BS as it is sending me the same that it would send me if I ran Firefox. Yet Firefox works correctly, Camino does not.
I did my part, spending at least a full day testing various suggestions. In the end it came down to "none of the developers has an account there" and "they aren't doing correct detection." Meaning they no interest in Camino working correctly with this bank, so beware.
Another serious issue is the ability to work with avi/wmv files (pretty much all streaming video outside Apple uses this format, the most used for me is cnn.com video). Now I know all about container formats and codecs. And I know that we Mac folk have Flip4Mac which brings reasonable support to windows centric codecs. And we know it works well with Safari. As far as I know, there has been no effort to get with the Flip4Mac developers to make it work in Camino as it does in Safari.
For the past few years I have become known in my circle as a tireless promoter of Camino, so I kinda feel let down big time. I do understand the issue of a free piece of software, but when it gets to the point that every three out of four lynches HAS to be another browser, what's the point. The snickers from my pals that the browser I so firmly proselytized will get little or no use certainly stings.
Camino
Mac-native Web browser with Mozilla's rendering engine.
Version: 2.0
Javscript?
Feedback Type: Commentary
Contributed by: paulc Tuesday, June 05 2007 @ 01:43 PM PDT
Product Platform: MacOSX
Used Product For: Over One Year
Recommend Product: NO
Comments
The other side - s_morgan
> Something significant must have happened in the JavaScript engine as it is implemented in Camino (IMO)You continue to express that opinion despite the fact that it was explained that the entirety of the javascript engine is shared, Mozilla core code. When you pre-diagnose the problem without technical knowledge of the browser's implementation and refuse to change your mind even when the technical impossibility of your theory is explained, it becomes very difficult to try to get useful debugging information.
> Most of them had to do with exactly what utility I had to use to spoof Firefox (as if the utility had anything to do with it).
That's because the utility in question, CamiTools, is well known to be incompatible with Camino 1.5, and we have many, many documented cases of options people have set with CamiTools having broken the rendering of pages. Again, second-guessing debugging steps that we recommended based on years of dealing with troubleshooting issues in Camino makes it hard to make useful progress.
> In the end it came down to "none of the developers has an account there" and "they aren't doing correct detection." Meaning they no interest in Camino working correctly with this bank, so beware.
It's a fact that none of us has an account there. Given that, and that it's a secure site, there is no way for us to do any testing ourselves. The fact that the we can't investigate further personally doesn't mean that we aren't interested in working correctly. It's exceedingly difficult to look into a problem that exists only with a secure site that explicitly has no interest in supporting Camino.
At the time the conversations you reference took place, the only other reports we had of the issue were from users who either had no problems, or who had had the problem but were able to resolve it by spoofing. Again, since none of us can test ourselves, we have to work with the feedback we have, and when only one person can see a problem, and that person makes claims that are not technically valid and argues that basic troubleshooting steps are unnecessary or counter-productive, the conclusion that there is in fact not a bug in the browser seems reasonable.
> As far as I know, there has been no effort to get with the Flip4Mac developers to make it work in Camino as it does in Safari.
Since you aren't involved in Camino development, the fact that you don't know about an discussions isn't surprising. We have communicated with the F4M developers, but we don't control them, and can't force them to fix the issue on any particular schedule.
You are of course entitled to your opinions about the Camino development team, but I would appreciate it if you didn't report your opions of our goals or motivations as fact.
Tuesday, June 05 2007 @ 02:34 PM PDT
Re: Javscript? - Uncle Asad
"Which is BS as it is sending me the same that it would send me if I ran Firefox."It is clearly not sending you the same JavaScript; any other JavaScript from any other sites that do not do bogus browser sniffing works the same in Camino and Firefox (and sites very often send different content to Firefox and Camino). Camino changes absolutely nothing with regard to javascript from the JavaScript implementation shipped by Firefox.
Camino developers can't control sites doing stupid things; you should complain to site developers instead of giving Camino's volunteer developers a hard time at every chance you get.
Reply to This
Tuesday, June 05 2007 @ 02:13 PM PDT